The Parable of the Good Samaritan: NRA Edition

January 24, 2013 in Misc · 5 comments

NRA Samaritan

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

He answered, “‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'”

“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And how many guns should I have?”

Jesus said to him, “If you don’t have a gun, sell your cloak and buy one.”

He said “See, Lord, here are two guns.”

“That might be enough,” Jesus replied. “But it never hurts to have more!”

Then Jesus said: “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up his plunder. A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A pacifist happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Democrat, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But an NRA member, armed with a Bushmaster .223 M4, came to where the man was; and when he saw him, he grew angry. He chased after the robbers and shot and killed them. Then he gave the man a Glock 22 and told him to always be ready to defend himself.”

“Which of these three do you think was properly prepared?”

The expert in the law replied, “The one who had the most guns.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

5 comments… read them below or add one

FishFinger January 25, 2013 at 12:48 pm

Kind of a strawman. Pro-gunners believe in a right to have guns, not in an obligation to do so.


Dan January 25, 2013 at 1:38 pm

I have actually had a conversation with a Christian who believes it is his moral obligation to own a gun and to use that gun in defense of self and liberty.

I have actually seen Luke 11.22 and Luke 22.36 cited in support of an inherent right to own a gun.

And from one widely-circulated pro-gun essay: “The proposed ‘assault weapons ban’ and other efforts to restrict, register and ultimately confiscate lawfully acquired guns used for lawful purposes is both an affront to our individual human right of self defense and our corporate responsibility to defend our Constitution” [emphasis added].


allegro63 January 25, 2013 at 4:30 pm

Wouldn’t it be rather delicious if the Supreme Court decided to uphold the Second Amendment but as interpreted by the technology of the day. Then, anyone could own a gun, as long as it was a single fire, muzzle loader, or a single fire pistol. All other forms of personal firearm would be made into farm equipment.


Mike Barnhart January 28, 2013 at 9:34 am

Multiple shot pistols existed LONG before the US came into existence. By your own standards, everyone could own a cannon as well – since that arm (which is short for armament) had also been in existence. You would not be happy with the results if you received what you just asked for.

Also, using your logic, freedom of speech should not exist on the Internet – no privacy allowed on phones, etc., since they did not exist when those Amendments were passed. Yeah, not a very good idea you had.


allegro63 January 28, 2013 at 6:43 pm

True, multiple shot pistols did exist prior to the Revolutionary war. They were several attempts, but never achieved any marketable success, mainly because of the expense and unreliability.. It wasn’t until 1835 when Colt made the first multi-shot revolver was there any wide spread sales. As for cannons, I don’t doubt that there were some private citizens who had one, But practicality? Cannons were cumbersome, hard to target, a pain to maintain, and then keeping armaments would keep a blacksmith to busy to make practical items, like horseshoes, hinges, farming implements etc.

Freedom of speech is not about people listening in on phone calls, which used to be a very common practice in the days of live telephone operators, and party lines, something that has gone out of existence in many of our lifetimes.. Freedom of speech is about the freedom to speak freely about things that may be considered controversial without fear of reprisal by the government. Such as criticizing government policy, speaking about one’s religion freely, or printing an article that has less then stellar things to say about a celebrity.


Leave a Reply

Previous post:

Next post: